- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cato study: white liberals only "group" offended by common microagressions, not minorities
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:07 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:07 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
White lefties are the problem, not minorities
Look at the YouTube videos of the students at the evergreen state college in WA. Very few of those kids are white.
Liberalism is the problem and it has successfully infected everyone no matter their race.
This post was edited on 10/18/17 at 5:08 pm
0
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:08 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Assuming this is correct would you be willing to change the way you speak to people to avoid offending ~25% of minorities/immigrants you interact with?
i pretty much offend everyone i meet at some point
it's called being real, and it used to MEAN SOMETHING IN THIS COUNTRY
to summarize:
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
>
The way she whitesplained to me I figured as much
Also the Cato institute like almost every single other think tank has little to no credibility.
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
"neocolonialism" damn interesting new word for me,but frick,isn't it self explanatory?
New ways to exploit.,might not even be new ways,just have some new tools.
New ways to exploit.,might not even be new ways,just have some new tools.
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:12 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
"I don't notice people's race" is considered offensive to the left now?
Their race is one of the first things I notice. It ranks right up there with male, female, or freak!
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i pretty much offend everyone i meet at some point
it's called being real, and it used to MEAN SOMETHING IN THIS COUNTRY
Being able to offensive to everyone you meet and still being successful/functional is a pretty good proxy for the status of privilege itself. Not everyone has that.
Posted on 10/18/17 at 10:36 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
"I don't notice people's race" is considered offensive to the left now?
You must learn the ways of the woke and become social justice warrior like your father
Posted on 10/18/17 at 10:42 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Assuming this is correct would you be willing to change the way you speak to people to avoid offending ~25% of minorities/immigrants you interact with
Being offended is a personal problem about how you choose to react to what someone says. Others should never give up their freedom of speech because someone says they're "offended". Anyone can say it about anything. They can get the frick over it.
This post was edited on 10/18/17 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 10/19/17 at 6:11 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Being able to offensive to everyone you meet and still being successful/functional is a pretty good proxy for the status of privilege itself. Not everyone has that.
you mean like how tokens at work can spout whatever bullshite they want?
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:29 am to upgrayedd
quote:
"I don't notice people's race" is considered offensive to the left now?
Makes sense. Race, sexual orientation, and gender preference are the only things the left does notice now.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:39 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
The practice of universities hiring administrators to establish rules and training on diversity and culture, is very much like the way communist parties try to indoctrinate people into thinking the way they "should". Instead of being places that encourage different ideas, our places of higher learning have become fronts for the far left political parties.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:40 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Being able to offensive to everyone you meet and still being successful/functional is a pretty good proxy for the status of privilege itself. Not everyone has that.
100% horesehite. If I were offended by something that 75% of "my people" weren't, I might do some introspection.
Go around whining and bitching about every perceived slur the rest of your life and see where that gets you. Folks like that make awesome employees, friends, and family members.
This post was edited on 10/19/17 at 8:42 am
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:43 am to AUsteriskPride
quote:
Being offended is a personal problem about how you choose to react to what someone says. Others should never give up their freedom of speech because someone says they're "offended". Anyone can say it about anything. They can get the frick over it.
Operationalize this statement. Take an extreme case - if my 5 year-old comes to me saying that your child had cried when my son called yours ugly, fat, dumb, or an ethnic slur, what would you think if you overheard me telling him what you just said above about the offended party being responsible for his own feelings? You'd be disgusted and rightfully so.
Being sensitive to how other people are likely to take our speech is just respectful good manners and the degree to which we can get away with displaying poor manners with minimal consequences is a function of privilege.
What makes this a PB thread is that when social norms change, people resist extending respect to new persons or in new ways in order to hold on to this privilege to act more freely. The comments in the research OP demonstrate gray areas that require a lot more subtlety in determining how we should speak, but we need to take the problem seriously and not refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of how we talk.
This post was edited on 10/19/17 at 8:45 am
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:47 am to TigerDoc
If you think someone saying I don't notice race is worthy of being considered a micro aggression then you are insane and likely use the term on a day to day basis.
I just had a conversation with a SJW about cultural appropriation. She claimed white people with dreadlocks were basically bad people. I reminded her that a white person with dread locks is 99999% more likely to share more interests like art and music with her than sports with me.
Basically, before she was judging someone by their looks after preaching about how evil judging someone by their looks is.
That must be #resist(ed).
She actually had an ah ha moment, I think. But, as soon as she gets back to her SJW crowd she is likely to go back to judging people for their looks. Virtue signaling like a mother fricker.
I just had a conversation with a SJW about cultural appropriation. She claimed white people with dreadlocks were basically bad people. I reminded her that a white person with dread locks is 99999% more likely to share more interests like art and music with her than sports with me.
Basically, before she was judging someone by their looks after preaching about how evil judging someone by their looks is.
That must be #resist(ed).
She actually had an ah ha moment, I think. But, as soon as she gets back to her SJW crowd she is likely to go back to judging people for their looks. Virtue signaling like a mother fricker.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:50 am to WorkinDawg
quote:
If I were offended by something that 75% of "my people" weren't, I might do some introspection.
This is a good point. Hearers of speech have some degree of responsibility and it is possible to be hypersensitive and the cases above marginal cases where some are offended and some aren't raise real questions about what's right and how much to self-censor.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:51 am to TigerDoc
quote:
What makes this a PB thread is that when social norms change, people resist extending respect to new persons or in new ways in order to hold on to this privilege to act more freely.
i'll respond seriously finally
the problem with this thinking is the assumption that the social norms being changed is an optimal thing
now obviously some social norms need (or needed, in the past) to change. racism (especially institutional via government) is the go to example and it's a terrible. that bullshite 100% needed to go
but when we get into other areas like, say, the increasing rates of single parent households, the data does not support this social norm being a positive/optimal societal change. why do think it's wrong to resist this change, especially when the data clearly shows it's a bad change for society?
another good, popular example is the increasing rates of obesity. terrible outcome and a really big issue for our society on a meta level. what positives can result from society accepting this change? whatever they are, they're clearly outweighed by the positives of society rejecting this change.
making rational decisions that are optimal for society should not constitute the label "privilege", and if you insist on this label, you turn "privilege" into a messy concept that isn't exactly leading to progress in society. you're unintentionally attacking your own argument
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:54 am to roadGator
Virtue signalling has its upside. Do you think white people stopped calling other people "n's" only because they developed a sense of respect and care for how it hurt blacks? I think it was probably as much because it they didn't want to be shamed by other whites.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:57 am to TigerDoc
quote:
I think it was probably as much because it they didn't want to be shamed by other whites.
Could be but that's just your opinion.
Virtue signaling is fake. If you need to virtue signal you are covering up for something else.
Whining about dreadlocks without knowing the person is virtue signaling at SJW championship levels.
Not calling someone the n word is not virtue signaling. Crowing about I'm too progressive to ever use the N word because I'm that awesome is virtue signaling.
I think we need to agree on what virtue signaling is and isn't. We are probably not that far apart.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 8:59 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
i come here every day and see loads of conservatives offended by microaggressions so i'm not sure this study is valid.
Posted on 10/19/17 at 9:00 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Do you think white people stopped calling other people "n's" only because they developed a sense of respect and care for how it hurt blacks? I think it was probably as much because it they didn't want to be shamed by other whites.
I think it was because a break down of the governmental barriers between blacks and whites led to more interaction and more humanization of the persons at whom people slung insults. Eventually, decent people relented.
It had nothing to do with smug annoying holier than thou virtue signals.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News